BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI Misc.Application No.MA/23/297 in SC/27/A/23/520 M/s.Thakur Enterprises A Proprietary concern O/a: 403, Hillview Apartment, Lokmanya Nagar Pada No.-4, Thane – 400606.

Through Proprietor Mr.Digambar V.Thakur ........Appellant V/s.

Mrs.Manisha Vijay Salunke R/a : C1/504, Harasiddh Park, Pokharam Road No.-2, Pawar Nagar, Thane West. ........Respondent BEFORE:

Justice Mr.S.P. Tavade, Hon’ble President Mr.Mukesh V.Sharma, Hon’ble Member For Applicant : Adv.Manvi Sharma For Respondent : Adv.Poonam Makhijani

ORDER

(07^th January, 2026)

Per: MR.MUKESH V. SHARMA, HON’BLE MEMBER

1. The Appellant has preferred the present First Appeal challenging

the order dated 28/11/2022 passed by the Ld. District Consumer

Disputes Redressal Commission/Forum, Thane in Consumer

Complaint No. 446 of 2018, along with the appeal, the Appellant has moved the present Application seeking condonation of delay.

2. As per the Appellant, copy of the impugned order was received on 30/12/2022 and there is a delay of 115 days in filing the appeal.

The Appellant prayed that the said delay be condoned.

3. The Appellant has stated that after receiving the order, time was consumed in consulting advocates, collecting papers from the trial court advocate, and getting the appeal drafted. It is further contended that the appeal was finalized in February 2023, however, the Appellant could not arrange the advocate’s fees and statutory deposit of Rs. 25,000/- due to financial difficulty, and therefore the appeal came to be filed after arranging the amount in the last week of April 2023.

4. The Respondent has strongly opposed the application. It is contended that the delay is not satisfactorily explained and there is no material to support the alleged consultations to advocate, collection of documents, or finalization of draft on the stated dates, and that the plea of financial difficulty is bald and unsupported by any record. It is therefore prayed that the application be rejected.

5. We have considered the application, the reply filed by the Respondent, and the material placed on record.

6. It is well settled law that while deciding an application for condonation of delay, the applicant must disclose a sufficient cause and the delay must be explained with reasonable particulars. A mere narrative, without supporting material, does not constitute sufficient cause.

7. In the present case, the Appellant has taken the ground that time was spent in consulting advocates, collecting papers and finalizing the draft. However, no document is produced to show the dates of such consultation, any correspondence, any receipt, any communication, or any supporting affidavit of the concerned advocate(s). The explanation given by the applicant is general and unsubstantiated.

8. The main explanation thereafter is alleged as financial difficulty to arrange advocate’s fees and the statutory deposit of Rs. 25,000/-. Even this plea is unsupported by any documentary evidence. Significantly, no document is annexed to demonstrate indigency or inability to arrange funds. There is no bank statement, income proof, liability record, or any credible material to show that the Appellant was genuinely prevented from acting within limitation.

9. Further, the Appellant is a proprietary concern/business entity. In such matters, a bald plea of financial difficulty, without proof, cannot be accepted as sufficient cause to condone a substantial delay. 10. In view of the above discussion, we are satisfied that the Appellant has failed to make out sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Hence, the delay condonation application deserves to be rejected. Consequentially, the appeal being time-barred cannot be entertained. Hence we proceed to pass following order :

ORDER

1. Interim Application for condonation of delay is rejected.

2. Consequently, First Appeal No. 520 of 2023 stands dismissed as barred by limitation.

3. No order as to costs.

4. Copy of this o